Geology topics

Mark C. Scott

Publications and source records attributed to Mark C. Scott.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2026

Relative influence of flow regime, natural and anthropogenic environment on multidimensional stream fish diversity

The flow regime is considered a ‘master variable’ in riverine ecology because it directly influences stream geomorphology and biological communities. However, other environmental and anthropogenic factors have direct and synergistic effects with flow on fish diversity, complicating estimates of the flow regime's true importance. Moreover, most flow-ecology studies focus only on taxonomic diversity (i.e., species), without considering functional (trait-focused) or phylogenetic (evolution-focused) dimensions of diversity. In this study, we used linear regression with variation partitioning to parse out the independent and shared roles of the flow regime, physical environmental factors (e.g., soil characteristics) and the anthropogenic environment (e.g., developed land cover) for structuring multidimensional diversity of 365 stream fish communities in two biogeographic regions across South Carolina, USA. These variables explained between 8% and 18% of total variation of the local diversity. The flow regime contributed to diversity in all cases, but frequently covaried with physical and/or anthropogenic environmental variables. This covariation indicated that the independent role of flow would have been inflated if other environmental variables were not considered. The three dimensions of stream fish diversity were weakly correlated with one another and were associated with different environmental variables, indicating that each of them represents unique and complimentary facets of fish diversity. Accordingly, only considering the independent effects of instream flow on fish diversity may miss meaningful interactions between the flow regime and the other components of the environment that influence biodiversity patterns, leading to over simplified flow–ecology relationships.

South Carolina↗

USGS2023

Effects of environment and metacommunity delineation on multiple dimensions of stream fish beta diversity

Introduction: Beta diversity represents changes in community composition among locations across a landscape. While the effects of human activities on beta diversity are becoming clearer, few studies have considered human effects on the three dimensions of beta diversity: taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic. Including anthropogenic factors and multiple dimensions of biodiversity may explain additional variation in stream fish beta diversity, providing new insight into how metacommunities are structured within different spatial delineations. Methods: In this study, we used a 350 site stream fish abundance dataset from South Carolina, United States to quantify beta diversity explainable by spatial, natural environmental, and anthropogenic variables. We investigated three spatial delineations: (1) a single whole-state metacommunity delineated by political boundaries, (2) two metacommunities delineated by a natural geomorphic break separating uplands from lowlands, and (3) four metacommunities delineated by natural watershed boundaries. Within each metacommunity we calculated taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic beta diversity and used variation partitioning to quantify spatial, natural environmental, and anthropogenic contributions to variations in beta diversity. Results: We explained 25–81% of the variation in stream fish beta diversity. The importance of these three factors in structuring metacommunities differed among the diversity dimensions, providing complementary perspectives on the processes shaping beta diversity in fish communities. The effect of spatial, natural environmental, and anthropogenic factors varied among the spatial delineations, which indicate conclusions drawn from variation partitioning may depend on the spatial delineation chosen by researchers. Discussion: Our study highlights the importance of considering human effects on metacommunity structure, quantifying multiple dimensions of beta diversity, and careful consideration of user-defined metacommunity boundaries in beta diversity analyses.

South Carolina↗

USGS2021

Modeling distribution of endemic Bartram’s Bass Micropterus sp. cf. coosae: Disturbance and proximity to invasion source increase hybridization with invasive Alabama Bass

“Bartram’s Bass” Micropterus sp. cf. coosae is endemic to the upper Savannah River basin of the southeastern United States and is threatened by hybridization with invasive Alabama Bass Micropterus henshalli . Bartram’s Bass have been functionally extirpated from reservoirs, and hybrid individuals have been detected in several tributaries. However, the extent of introgression in tributaries is currently unknown. Our objectives were to (1) assess the distribution of Bartram’s Bass, native Largemouth Bass M . salmoides , invasive Alabama Bass, and their hybrids in streams of the upper Savannah River basin and (2) quantify effects of abiotic variables on the distribution of each species. We sampled 154 locations in 2017 and 2018 and assigned genetic identity using hydrolysis probes and microsatellites. We used conditional inference trees to quantify variables affecting the occurrence of each species and hybrids. We observed widespread hybridization across the basin. Pure Bartram’s Bass were collected at 27% (42) of sites, among which only 12 sites contained pure Bartram’s Bass and no other congeners. Thirty sites where pure Bartram’s Bass were collected contained hybrids. In the montane Blue Ridge ecoregion, occurrence of pure Bartram’s Bass was negatively affected by low levels of local-scale developed land cover. In the lower-relief Piedmont ecoregion, pure Bartram’s Bass were positively associated with watershed-scale forest land cover and stream gradient. Distance from a reservoir was positively associated with occurrence of pure Bartram’s Bass in both ecoregions. Pure Bartram’s Bass are likely to occur with high probability in only 16% of nonimpounded stream segments; this represents a conservative estimate, and the true number is likely lower. However, future work accounting for incomplete detection of Bartram’s Bass will help to improve confidence in true extirpations. Conservation efforts may be more successful if implemented on stream segments farther from reservoirs or upstream of dispersal barriers preventing colonization of Alabama Bass.

Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina↗